Laws mandating the coverage of women’s breasts, while not extending the same requirement to men, are formulated exclusively through a male lens. These laws presuppose that men’s bodies are inherently natural and ordinary, while suggesting that the bodies of women necessitate concealment due to their divergence.

According to the principle of sameness theory, women can receive fair and equitable treatment solely if they align themselves with the attributes and characteristics typically associated with men.

Physical distinctions among different racial groups do not provide a valid basis for unfair treatment, and the same applies to physical distinctions between genders.

This statement dives into a significant issue within the realm of gender equality and the law:

Male-Normative Perspective: Many societal norms, including laws, have been historically constructed based on male standards. This has sometimes led to viewing female bodies as deviations from the “norm,” which can perpetuate the notion that women’s bodies are inherently sexual or indecent and need to be concealed.
Sameness Theory: Reena Glazer’s quote highlights the dilemma of the “sameness/difference” debate in feminist jurisprudence. Sameness theory posits that women should be treated the same as men to achieve equality. In contrast, difference theory argues that treating women the same as men doesn’t account for their unique experiences and might still lead to inequality. This tension is evident in debates around issues such as toplessness laws.
Comparison with Racial Differences: The argument presented—that physical differences shouldn’t be the basis for discrimination—draws parallels with racial discrimination. Just as variations in skin color, facial features, or hair texture among racial groups aren’t valid grounds for discriminatory treatment, physical differences between genders shouldn’t be either. The essential argument here is that mere physical differences, whether racial or gender-based, shouldn’t lead to different rights or treatments under the law.
Legal Interpretation: Legal systems globally grapple with this issue. In some jurisdictions, laws that discriminate based on physical differences between the sexes have been struck down, reflecting evolving societal views. Other places maintain traditional laws based on cultural or religious beliefs.
Challenging Prejudices: Pushing against male-centric laws requires challenging long-held prejudices and standards. This involves societal introspection on how we view gender differences and what we consider “normal” or “natural.”

In conclusion, the move toward gender equality, in many ways, involves re-examining laws that have historically been framed from a predominantly male perspective. By analyzing and questioning these norms, societies can progress toward more equitable legal systems.